|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2020 17:49:37 GMT
It's because they decided on a storytelling device that they immediately broke. They didn't want to lock it down in a specific year. And 50-60 years is right in the scope of not too distant future. The distant future would have made it look like Valarian. Years later is too short a time. Not too distant just feels like a long time from now, but not too far away.
If they wanted it in a time beyond the present they would have shown that in everyday tech. Everything looked very modern besides the stuff that the X-men had.
Not really when the events in the movie are depicting human/mutants lives, going from 13 year old Eric to 70 year old Eric is not the not too distant future on a character scale, which is what that was showing, if someone told you hey lend me some money I will pay you back in the not too distant future, would you even for a moment consider they mean they will pay you back in 60 years time?
To me it always made sense it was saying it was taking place a little further along than our own current time period, they way you see it just seems off to me, then again it's the FoX-Men movies none of this shit makes sense, X2 and Origins fuck this up even worse, the 15 years thing, Origins sets the events of the Weapon X programme in 1979, so if you take Stryker at his word that puts X2 taking place in 1994 stupid lazy timeline horseshit
If I lent someone money and they said they'd pay me back in the not too distant future, I would think it started from that point in time. There is no reason at all to have the X-men movies take place a year or 2 ahead of the current time. Especially when they didn't have the budget to showcase this. And they didn't. The movie looked like the year they made it in.
That's why I look at them saying a number as them rounding it off. Especially when they say the number by 5s or 10s. He just saw that Logan was in the hallway and started talking. Stryker didn't do quick math on the number of years since he last saw Logan. He just said a close enough number. They do the same thing in the show 24. They always say they gonna do something 15 or 30 minutes or an hour from then.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 18:28:03 GMT
Not really when the events in the movie are depicting human/mutants lives, going from 13 year old Eric to 70 year old Eric is not the not too distant future on a character scale, which is what that was showing, if someone told you hey lend me some money I will pay you back in the not too distant future, would you even for a moment consider they mean they will pay you back in 60 years time?
To me it always made sense it was saying it was taking place a little further along than our own current time period, they way you see it just seems off to me, then again it's the FoX-Men movies none of this shit makes sense, X2 and Origins fuck this up even worse, the 15 years thing, Origins sets the events of the Weapon X programme in 1979, so if you take Stryker at his word that puts X2 taking place in 1994 stupid lazy timeline horseshit
If I lent someone money and they said they'd pay me back in the not too distant future, I would think it started from that point in time. There is no reason at all to have the X-men movies take place a year or 2 ahead of the current time. Especially when they didn't have the budget to showcase this. And they didn't. The movie looked like the year they made it in.
That's why I look at them saying a number as them rounding it off. Especially when they say the number by 5s or 10s. He just saw that Logan was in the hallway and started talking. Stryker didn't do quick math on the number of years since he last saw Logan. He just said a close enough number. They do the same thing in the show 24. They always say they gonna do something 15 or 30 minutes or an hour from then.
Yeah but do they say 15 minutes when they mean an hour? rounding off is fine if you round off to an adequate number, 15 years from 1979 is anywhere between 1992-1997, it's 20 or 25 years based on which time period you believe the original trilogy takes place in, so it's still idiotic retconning, and not like Stryker is talking to Logan as if hey bro how longs it been since we had a beer together? a date he may not even recall, he knows when he last saw Logan and what the date is no so he made a considerable cock up.
As for when X1 is set and the not too distant thing, tbh we are clearly not going to agree on this so why bother keep it up, lets find common ground, Supperhero is quite the dingbat don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 5, 2020 20:20:40 GMT
Dazzy, Dazzy, Dazzy, you're a deranged nerd/misfit. We cannot truly help you at all. Your clear bipolarism is not our cup of tea.
"There it is the Island, Three Mile Island, hiding in plain sight, no one is going to snoop around a nuclear reactor, they think it's going to turn them into freaks" - still, it's not a confirmation or a denial.
It's 15 years since 1983. Origins is set in 1983, not 1979. Cyclops is 18 years old. End of the story.
X1 is set in 1998 or 1999, of course I pick 1999.
TheGuy kinda agrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 5, 2020 20:54:24 GMT
As simple as that:
First Class: 1962 X-Men Origins: 1983 X-Men: 1999 X2: 1999 The Last Stand: 2000 The Wolverine: 2008 Days of Future Past: 2023
Logan is set in 2029, alternate universe. Deadpool and Deadpool 2 are set in 2016-2018, alternate universe.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 21:40:07 GMT
Dazzy, Dazzy, Dazzy, you're a deranged nerd/misfit. We cannot truly help you at all. Your clear bipolarism is not our cup of tea. "There it is the Island, Three Mile Island, hiding in plain sight, no one is going to snoop around a nuclear reactor, they think it's going to turn them into freaks" - still, it's not a confirmation or a denial. It's 15 years since 1983. Origins is set in 1983, not 1979. Cyclops is 18 years old. End of the story. X1 is set in 1998 or 1999, of course I pick 1999. TheGuy kinda agrees with me. So what now X2 is set in 1998? thought it was 1999 according to your DEFINITIVE timeline? which therefore pushes back the year on EVERY movie after the fact meaning you were wrong on almost every account of the events of the movies...genius, to try and disprove my point you admit to being wrong on the majority of your own, you fucking clamshell.
No Origins is set in 1979, ThatGuy specifically states the only thing he disagreed with me on is what the not too distant future tag is referring to, not anything else I originally said, so he doesn't agree with you and once again you prove how much a freaking imbecile you are, you deluded little pitiful cock goblin.
See I know you are trying to goad me into verbally and emotionally eviscerating and dismembering you, but you are not worth it, anyone with an IQ below the mid double digits can see you for the idiot you are, sadly that excludes you obviously, so you keep telling yahself that you have cracked the code, I know and everyone else on here also knows only thing around here that has cracked is what you called your sanity, you should really go back to your padded room before supper, I here tonight's pudding is banana's in custard, don't want to miss that now do you peaches? Leave the actual intellectual conversations to those with actual intellects there's a good window licker.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2020 22:08:09 GMT
Dazzy, Dazzy, Dazzy, you're a deranged nerd/misfit. We cannot truly help you at all. Your clear bipolarism is not our cup of tea. "There it is the Island, Three Mile Island, hiding in plain sight, no one is going to snoop around a nuclear reactor, they think it's going to turn them into freaks" - still, it's not a confirmation or a denial. It's 15 years since 1983. Origins is set in 1983, not 1979. Cyclops is 18 years old. End of the story. X1 is set in 1998 or 1999, of course I pick 1999. TheGuy kinda agrees with me. That's the problem with using real world events for background in the movies. They used the Three Mile Island accident as a point to mark when the movie takes place. That happened in the beginning of 1979. Not 1983. Can't use a real world even then change it for a movie so the timeline works. And they didn't change it.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2020 22:24:26 GMT
If I lent someone money and they said they'd pay me back in the not too distant future, I would think it started from that point in time. There is no reason at all to have the X-men movies take place a year or 2 ahead of the current time. Especially when they didn't have the budget to showcase this. And they didn't. The movie looked like the year they made it in.
That's why I look at them saying a number as them rounding it off. Especially when they say the number by 5s or 10s. He just saw that Logan was in the hallway and started talking. Stryker didn't do quick math on the number of years since he last saw Logan. He just said a close enough number. They do the same thing in the show 24. They always say they gonna do something 15 or 30 minutes or an hour from then.
Yeah but do they say 15 minutes when they mean an hour? rounding off is fine if you round off to an adequate number, 15 years from 1979 is anywhere between 1992-1997, it's 20 or 25 years based on which time period you believe the original trilogy takes place in, so it's still idiotic retconning, and not like Stryker is talking to Logan as if hey bro how longs it been since we had a beer together? a date he may not even recall, he knows when he last saw Logan and what the date is no so he made a considerable cock up.
As for when X1 is set and the not too distant thing, tbh we are clearly not going to agree on this so why bother keep it up, lets find common ground, Supperhero is quite the dingbat don't you agree? Nah, they say 15 minutes when it could be 10-20 minutes.
I think X-men Origins screwed up the Weapon X part of the movies. They could have gotten a couple more movies out of that time period if they ended it another way. Maybe have him lose his memory by the end of the 3rd Wolverine prequel. Even The Wolverine could have been based in the early 80s as is. Just have him morning the death of Silver Fox instead of Jean. First Class made that same mistake of trying to connect the prequel to the first movie too fast. Xavier didn't have to be crippled until Apocalypse. Magneto didn't have to go bad until then. They kept working on the assumption that they had to wrap things up because there will be no more movies after the current one. Not thinking that they could leave it open for things to happen in between even if they didn't make another movie. I think that's why the X-men world feels boring. That nothing happens.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 23:00:00 GMT
Yeah but do they say 15 minutes when they mean an hour? rounding off is fine if you round off to an adequate number, 15 years from 1979 is anywhere between 1992-1997, it's 20 or 25 years based on which time period you believe the original trilogy takes place in, so it's still idiotic retconning, and not like Stryker is talking to Logan as if hey bro how longs it been since we had a beer together? a date he may not even recall, he knows when he last saw Logan and what the date is no so he made a considerable cock up.
As for when X1 is set and the not too distant thing, tbh we are clearly not going to agree on this so why bother keep it up, lets find common ground, Supperhero is quite the dingbat don't you agree? Nah, they say 15 minutes when it could be 10-20 minutes.
I think X-men Origins screwed up the Weapon X part of the movies. They could have gotten a couple more movies out of that time period if they ended it another way. Maybe have him lose his memory by the end of the 3rd Wolverine prequel. Even The Wolverine could have been based in the early 80s as is. Just have him morning the death of Silver Fox instead of Jean. First Class made that same mistake of trying to connect the prequel to the first movie too fast. Xavier didn't have to be crippled until Apocalypse. Magneto didn't have to go bad until then. They kept working on the assumption that they had to wrap things up because there will be no more movies after the current one. Not thinking that they could leave it open for things to happen in between even if they didn't make another movie. I think that's why the X-men world feels boring. That nothing happens.
Ok first thing
Second thing, yeah I agree that would have been more interesting, the pre task force stuff was way more interesting imo, that could have been the movie, Logan and Creed brothers through time with Origins 1 maybe ending with them being approached by Stryker, Origins 2 could be about the task force, ending with Logan leaving the team and have him acquire his name in the film then origins 3 could be Logan being dragged back into things, Creed has gone off the rails and stuff ending with Logan going through the procedure and what not, so we get 2 movies of Logan and Victor as brothers which makes them turning on each other more meaningful and we now see the life Logan had before hand and what it means he lost with his memories.
Same for FC, though I do love that movie.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 6, 2020 14:50:43 GMT
Dazzy, Dazzy, Dazzy, you're a deranged nerd/misfit. We cannot truly help you at all. Your clear bipolarism is not our cup of tea. "There it is the Island, Three Mile Island, hiding in plain sight, no one is going to snoop around a nuclear reactor, they think it's going to turn them into freaks" - still, it's not a confirmation or a denial. It's 15 years since 1983. Origins is set in 1983, not 1979. Cyclops is 18 years old. End of the story. X1 is set in 1998 or 1999, of course I pick 1999. TheGuy kinda agrees with me. That's the problem with using real world events for background in the movies. They used the Three Mile Island accident as a point to mark when the movie takes place. That happened in the beginning of 1979. Not 1983. Can't use a real world even then change it for a movie so the timeline works. And they didn't change it. It's not our universe. It's a parallel universe where the Cuban Missile Crisis went differently and involved the mutants... It's a parallel universe where a powerful mutant ruled over Egypt. It's a parallel universe where they were developing Big Robots (Sentinels) in the Seventies. It's a parallel universe where technology was far more advanced in 1999. That said, the Three Mile Island Incident could have OR COULDN'T occurred in 1979, that's fair, but we don't care because we know that X-MEN ORIGINS is set in 1983, years later. Maybe the Incident truly occurred in 1979, but it was much smaller than our counterpart. Maybe it didn't happen at all. Or maybe the destruction of the reactor in 1983 will be regarded as the "Three Mile Island Incident" of this universe and that would be cool anyway. We know that it's 1983 because: 1- Cyclops is 18 years old, as established by "Apocalypse". 2- The Weapon X project, even in the altered timeline, would be "ready to go" only in 1983. 3- The "15 years thing" since X-Men 1.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 6, 2020 15:49:45 GMT
That's the problem with using real world events for background in the movies. They used the Three Mile Island accident as a point to mark when the movie takes place. That happened in the beginning of 1979. Not 1983. Can't use a real world even then change it for a movie so the timeline works. And they didn't change it. It's not our universe. It's a parallel universe where the Cuban Missile Crisis went differently and involved the mutants... It's a parallel universe where a powerful mutant ruled over Egypt. It's a parallel universe where they were developing Big Robots (Sentinels) in the Seventies. It's a parallel universe where technology was far more advanced in 1999. That said, the Three Mile Island Incident could have OR COULDN'T occurred in 1979, that's fair, but we don't care because we know that X-MEN ORIGINS is set in 1983, years later. Maybe the Incident truly occurred in 1979, but it was much smaller than our counterpart. Maybe it didn't happen at all. Or maybe the destruction of the reactor in 1983 will be regarded as the "Three Mile Island Incident" of this universe and that would be cool anyway. We know that it's 1983 because: 1- Cyclops is 18 years old, as established by "Apocalypse". 2- The Weapon X project, even in the altered timeline, would be "ready to go" only in 1983. 3- The "15 years thing" since X-Men 1. Except you cannot because other films also include other moments and easter eggs you have to discard to even attempt to make sense of things, such as Cyclops and Storm being alive and not as babies in 1962/3 as in FC, Jean's powers awakening at different times, she is genetically programmed for her powers to manifest during puberty as shown in TLS but in DP they emerge much sooner for no reason, which considering you are claiming Origins and Apocalypse happen at the same time to sync up Scott's powers means Jean's powers should also manifest at the same time in both timelines give or take maybe a month or two.
Why would Weapon X only be ready to go by 1983, what in universe explanation is there for that? in universe, backed up by facts, not your universe where you pull "facts" out of thin air endlessly mind you.
Keep in mind how is ANYNONE meant to take you seriously when you blatantly lie, make things up, cannot do simple add and subtract sums and fundamentally fail to comprehend actual events and dialog shown/delivered on screen?
I mean even if the X-Men timeline wasn't an utter mess you still wouldn't be able to make a coherent timeline that is the "definitive" timeline as you boast because you are too incompetent to do so.
The funny thing X-Men plays like it is meant to be our universe, events happen the same time they did in ours until the events of DOFP, as am I wrong or doesn't this not happen in Apocalypse and DP? This is why you can use the events of the movies to pin point times, they don't just all fall into place except this one movie because you have a neurotic need to say this whole bowl of spaghetti is a flipping lasagne yah pleb.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 6, 2020 16:02:50 GMT
Storm in FC: she's Ororo Munroe. She was 3 in 1962. It makes sense. She is 24 in 1983. That's good. "Cyclops" in FC: just a guy with the sunglasses. A nod, not a cameo. He's not Scott.
(the deleted scene of Origins involving Ororo is not canon)
Cyclops was 18 years old in both 'Origins' and 'Apocalypse'. He was in high school, last year. That's so obvious.
Jean Grey is an Omega-level mutant, she's PHOENIX from the birth. Her powers can activate before or after, timeline oscillations. It happened in comic books too, when she experienced the death of her little friend Annie. She was a little child.
My timeline is perfect. No lies on there. What you see on-screen is CANON.
It's a parallel universe, and you know it. Just study my timelines. You know the URL. Have fun, Dazzie.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 6, 2020 16:32:02 GMT
Storm in FC: she's Ororo Munroe. She was 3 in 1962. It makes sense. She is 24 in 1983. That's good. "Cyclops" in FC: just a guy with the sunglasses. A nod, not a cameo. He's not Scott. (the deleted scene of Origins involving Ororo is not canon) Cyclops was 18 years old in both 'Origins' and 'Apocalypse'. He was in high school, last year. That's so obvious. Jean Grey is an Omega-level mutant, she's PHOENIX from the birth. Her powers can activate before or after, timeline oscillations. It happened in comic books too, when she experienced the death of her little friend Annie. She was a little child. My timeline is perfect. No lies on there. What you see on-screen is CANON. It's a parallel universe, and you know it. Just study my timelines. You know the URL. Have fun, Dazzie. Hey doofus you have been saying your timelines are perfect for years, then you have to keep altering them, not to simply add new events from new movies but to improve them, including utterly throwing aside your whole Shaw is a time traveller nonsense, perfection can not be improved upon, the fact you keep having to "improve" them means they are not perfect, dingbat.
Just a guy who is a mutant, has the same hair and skin colour, frame as well as colour coordination as Scott and who WAS intended to be Scott until Singer took over the series again and retconned it out, because FC was initially thought up to be a different series not a prequel to the Singer/Ratner films.
Any in universe explanation for Jean's powers being present since birth? or you pulling out of your arse again, comics do not count if they did Storm, Iceman and Magneto would all also be Omega level mutants.
I wouldn't give your blog the time of day mate, I tried once before and you proved yourself to be a moron, still do so no thanks if I wanted to read the shit smeared ramblings of a lunatic I can go work in a mental institute, I suggest you do yourself a favour and check yourself in voluntarily before the men in the white coats come and collect you forcefully.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 6, 2020 19:52:43 GMT
Storm in FC: she's Ororo Munroe. She was 3 in 1962. It makes sense. She is 24 in 1983. That's good. "Cyclops" in FC: just a guy with the sunglasses. A nod, not a cameo. He's not Scott. (the deleted scene of Origins involving Ororo is not canon) Cyclops was 18 years old in both 'Origins' and 'Apocalypse'. He was in high school, last year. That's so obvious. Jean Grey is an Omega-level mutant, she's PHOENIX from the birth. Her powers can activate before or after, timeline oscillations. It happened in comic books too, when she experienced the death of her little friend Annie. She was a little child. My timeline is perfect. No lies on there. What you see on-screen is CANON. It's a parallel universe, and you know it. Just study my timelines. You know the URL. Have fun, Dazzie. Hey doofus you have been saying your timelines are perfect for years, then you have to keep altering them, not to simply add new events from new movies but to improve them, including utterly throwing aside your whole Shaw is a time traveller nonsense, perfection can not be improved upon, the fact you keep having to "improve" them means they are not perfect, dingbat.
Just a guy who is a mutant, has the same hair and skin colour, frame as well as colour coordination as Scott and who WAS intended to be Scott until Singer took over the series again and retconned it out, because FC was initially thought up to be a different series not a prequel to the Singer/Ratner films.
Any in universe explanation for Jean's powers being present since birth? or you pulling out of your arse again, comics do not count if they did Storm, Iceman and Magneto would all also be Omega level mutants.
I wouldn't give your blog the time of day mate, I tried once before and you proved yourself to be a moron, still do so no thanks if I wanted to read the shit smeared ramblings of a lunatic I can go work in a mental institute, I suggest you do yourself a favour and check yourself in voluntarily before the men in the white coats come and collect you forcefully. Dazzie, Dazzie, your bipolarism just took over your mind & body again, and now I'm talking with "Evil Dazz". Okay. Right. Evil Dazz, listen to me: Comic Book Jean Grey manifested her powers as a child.
(maybe you don't read X-Men comic books; you should, they are awesome and much better than the Avengers ones)In "The Last Stand" flashback (1980), she was about 13 years old (the actress who played her was 13 years old). She looks like she manifested her powers much time before that... In the "Dark Phoenix" prologue (1975), she was about 8 years old. I guess she manifested her powers some months before. In DOFP (1973), she was 6 years old. In "Apocalypse", she was 16/17 years old. Even if it's not canon, in the deleted scene of ORIGINS, Storm looks aprox. 7/8 years old, and she already affects the weather (it starts to rain). The guy looking like Scott in FC is not Scott, just a 1-second long nod to the fans. LMAO.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 6, 2020 22:00:15 GMT
Hey doofus you have been saying your timelines are perfect for years, then you have to keep altering them, not to simply add new events from new movies but to improve them, including utterly throwing aside your whole Shaw is a time traveller nonsense, perfection can not be improved upon, the fact you keep having to "improve" them means they are not perfect, dingbat.
Just a guy who is a mutant, has the same hair and skin colour, frame as well as colour coordination as Scott and who WAS intended to be Scott until Singer took over the series again and retconned it out, because FC was initially thought up to be a different series not a prequel to the Singer/Ratner films.
Any in universe explanation for Jean's powers being present since birth? or you pulling out of your arse again, comics do not count if they did Storm, Iceman and Magneto would all also be Omega level mutants.
I wouldn't give your blog the time of day mate, I tried once before and you proved yourself to be a moron, still do so no thanks if I wanted to read the shit smeared ramblings of a lunatic I can go work in a mental institute, I suggest you do yourself a favour and check yourself in voluntarily before the men in the white coats come and collect you forcefully. Dazzie, Dazzie, your bipolarism just took over your mind & body again, and now I'm talking with "Evil Dazz". Okay. Right. Evil Dazz, listen to me: Comic Book Jean Grey manifested her powers as a child.
(maybe you don't read X-Men comic books; you should, they are awesome and much better than the Avengers ones)In "The Last Stand" flashback (1980), she was about 13 years old (the actress who played her was 13 years old). She looks like she manifested her powers much time before that... In the "Dark Phoenix" prologue (1975), she was about 8 years old. I guess she manifested her powers some months before. In DOFP (1973), she was 6 years old. In "Apocalypse", she was 16/17 years old. Even if it's not canon, in the deleted scene of ORIGINS, Storm looks aprox. 7/8 years old, and she already affects the weather (it starts to rain). The guy looking like Scott in FC is not Scott, just a 1-second long nod to the fans. LMAO. Again I say Matthew Vaughn intended that to be Scott in that scene, they retconned it out because Singer took over, it wasn't a allusion to Cyclops it was Cyclops, as for Storm, dear god look at you change your tune and back pedal, ok genius if Storm is meant to be 7/8, which BTW is what I was saying to you like 6 months ago when we discussed this and you were adamant she was like 3 years old, but even now ok she's 7/8. that puts her DOB at the latest as 1956 which makes her 27 in Apocalypse, again your math is horrendous and how can anyone take you seriously when you make such blatant mistakes like this constantly?
Also Storm does not come across as that old, she comes across as an older teen like Jean and Scott.
Ok so where is Jean in DOFP? no website lists her as being in it as a child that is, only Famke's Jean is in the movie so where is she?
Here's the thing genius the comics are not canon for the movies, the movies discard the comics all the time, you cannot use the comics as proof of some idea you want to introduce into a movie series where the Phoenix Force is just Jean being mentally ill and not an all power psionic cosmic force?
This is your problem, I tried having a reasonable talk with you about this months ago, but you are such an ignoramus and arrogant prick that you ate up all my tolerance for you, so now I cut the niceties and tell you as it is, you are a loser, a moron, a demented nugget of faecal matter clinging hanging off of the arse hairs of life, your timelines are bullshit like 99.999% of everything you spout, do the world a favour, shut up and grow up, your timelines are not perfect because perfection cannot be achieved by someone with a single digit IQ and the creative wit of a clubbed seal.
On the Brightside atleast you now recognise that the Storm character in FC isn't a toddler, that's progress atleast.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 6, 2020 22:20:21 GMT
Evil Dazzie:
Don't be angry. I don't think you're a loser or a moron, just a terminal crazy who suffers for his severe bipolarism and messes his life up. We can work it out anyway. I know, your life is painful and you struggle to think coherently. I feel sorry for you, actually.
Ororo is an accomplished thief at the beginning of "Apocalypse". She can easily pass for a 24 years old girl.
NO, you didn't read my post. The "STORM" depicted on the 'X-Men Origins' deleted scene is 7/8 years old. You don't know anything about this deleted scene, don't you? You silly kid. Well, it doesn't matter, it's not canon anyway. LOL
FIRST CLASS is set in 1962, not 1956 LMAO.
So canonical Ororo/Storm was 3 in 1962, 24 in 1983, 33 in 1992, 40 in 1999, 41 in 2000 (The Last Stand).
Jean Grey was featured on DOFP 1973, yes. Again, you're ignorant. LMAO.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 6, 2020 23:02:45 GMT
Evil Dazzie: Don't be angry. I don't think you're a loser or a moron, just a terminal crazy who suffers for his severe bipolarism and messes his life up. We can work it out anyway. I know, your life is painful and you struggle to think coherently. I feel sorry for you, actually. Ororo is an accomplished thief at the beginning of "Apocalypse". She can easily pass for a 24 years old girl. NO, you didn't read my post. The "STORM" depicted on the 'X-Men Origins' deleted scene is 7/8 years old. You don't know anything about this deleted scene, don't you? You silly kid. Well, it doesn't matter, it's not canon anyway. LOL FIRST CLASS is set in 1962, not 1956 LMAO. So canonical Ororo/Storm was 3 in 1962, 24 in 1983, 33 in 1992, 40 in 1999, 41 in 2000 (The Last Stand). Jean Grey was featured on DOFP 1973, yes. Again, you're ignorant. LMAO. Then where is she featured Einstein, just going yeah she was feature lol doesn't prove shit.
Ah see that was my mistake I got jumbled and thought you had said FC not Origins, in my defence you typically spout so much bullshit it is hard to keep track.
But here's a question then, why is Storm Storm in FC to you in that scene but not Cyclops when they appear in the very same manner?
Also how does being an "accomplished" thief mean she can pass for 24? and by your spouting she isn't passing for 24 she is 24 you lunk head.
Now this all started by talking about mutants aging, so tell me simple Supper's WHY do mutants only stop aging at the point they enter the movies main time periods? and then rapidly age at different points for no reason? such as Magneto ages like normal between adolescence to old age in the original movies, Jean and Xavier age normally between the 20 years earlier in TLS to present day, Striker's son ages normally between Origins and X2, Jean, Scott, Storm, Kurt all age normally until Apocalypse then don't age for the next ten years, but age considerably between 92-99 according to you, Beast and Alex don't age at all between 1963 and 1988/92 respectively and then Beast ages DECADES in the next 8 years, Mystique, Xavier and Magneto age normally between childhood to 1963 then stop aging for the next 30 years entirely, Quicksilver also ages normally up to DOFP then his aging halts also for the next 2 decades.
And why doesn't Stryker age between DOFP and Apocalypse despite being human?
So the aging thing only happens to characters once they reach the movies, mutant or human alike, except Logan who gets older looking the younger he is and despite his aging supposedly being super halted?
Again it's because the movies didn't give a fuck, this mutants have a slower aging process is a load of bull created to excuse laziness on the films part.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 7, 2020 13:13:49 GMT
McCOY/BEAST ages much slower than regular mutants, because he has got Mystique's DNA embedded into him. Canon.
MAGNETO in the original timeline had been imprisoned for aprox. 15 years (1963-1978) and he had been the subject of various terrible and heavy experiments that kinda "ruined" his aging. Like Mutant 143 who looks much older than his age... That's why Original Timeline Magneto has white hair, among the other things.
Even LOGAN/WOLVERINE from child became a man, and then his aging started to slow. LOL, talking about growing up before. Cinematic mutants, even without healing factor and regeneration, age SLOWER and BETTER than humans. Not slower and better than Wolverine, Sabretooth or even Mystique and Beast, of course.
William Stryker Jr.: suspension of disbelief. He aged a bit better in the altered timeline. Different actor anyway.
I repeat: the continuity works. My timelines are 100% perfect, no flaws. Have a good read.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 7, 2020 13:53:43 GMT
That's the problem with using real world events for background in the movies. They used the Three Mile Island accident as a point to mark when the movie takes place. That happened in the beginning of 1979. Not 1983. Can't use a real world even then change it for a movie so the timeline works. And they didn't change it. It's not our universe. It's a parallel universe where the Cuban Missile Crisis went differently and involved the mutants... It's a parallel universe where a powerful mutant ruled over Egypt. It's a parallel universe where they were developing Big Robots (Sentinels) in the Seventies. It's a parallel universe where technology was far more advanced in 1999. That said, the Three Mile Island Incident could have OR COULDN'T occurred in 1979, that's fair, but we don't care because we know that X-MEN ORIGINS is set in 1983, years later. Maybe the Incident truly occurred in 1979, but it was much smaller than our counterpart. Maybe it didn't happen at all. Or maybe the destruction of the reactor in 1983 will be regarded as the "Three Mile Island Incident" of this universe and that would be cool anyway. We know that it's 1983 because: 1- Cyclops is 18 years old, as established by "Apocalypse". 2- The Weapon X project, even in the altered timeline, would be "ready to go" only in 1983. 3- The "15 years thing" since X-Men 1. It's more that the main X-men movies from First Class on are basically episodes of Ancient Aliens. Everything happens like in the real world execpt mutants were there for it. If there was a movie based in 2020, it would be Apocalypse and his four horsemen behind it. We've already had really big floods, fires, earthquakes and a virus in just the last 3 months.
You do know that none of the filmmakers pay any attention to continuity. Not even the ones that make a 2 movies in a row. They erased Origins win they made Apocalypse. So Origins happens in 1979. Apocalypse happens in 1983 because they firmly placed it in 1983. And, again, Stryker wasn't giving a specific span of time when he said 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 7, 2020 18:33:03 GMT
McCOY/BEAST ages much slower than regular mutants, because he has got Mystique's DNA embedded into him. Canon. MAGNETO in the original timeline had been imprisoned for aprox. 15 years (1963-1978) and he had been the subject of various terrible and heavy experiments that kinda "ruined" his aging. Like Mutant 143 who looks much older than his age... That's why Original Timeline Magneto has white hair, among the other things. Even LOGAN/WOLVERINE from child became a man, and then his aging started to slow. LOL, talking about growing up before. Cinematic mutants, even without healing factor and regeneration, age SLOWER and BETTER than humans. Not slower and better than Wolverine, Sabretooth or even Mystique and Beast, of course. William Stryker Jr.: suspension of disbelief. He aged a bit better in the altered timeline. Different actor anyway. I repeat: the continuity works. My timelines are 100% perfect, no flaws. Have a good read. You miss the point you simpleton, why does Beast remain looking like a young man in his twenties in the FC-DP movies, yet he ages to look 50 in the X1-3 timeline even though DP and X3 are according to you set merely 7 years apart? Using Mystiques DNA is meant to happen in BOTH time periods so how does he age in one but not the other?
Magneto is captured in both timelines, according to you in one he gets freed 6 years earlier than the other, but he is still imprisoned for just over 8 years in the new timeline, but prison has no effects on him here, also is this actually stated in the films he was experimented on at that time? or just a vague comment? because a vague one doesn't work for me given him being experimented on once captured is easily explained by his X2 incarceration and treatment by Stryker, so this being a possible explanation needs to actually be stated in the movies or it's again you just pulling nonsense out of your rear end.
Again you miss the entire point you drivelling idiot, why, oh WHY do mutants age NORMALLY up until their characters enter the movies, why did Magneto, Xavier and Hank all age NORMALLY up until 1962 in the new timelines but then stop aging for 30 years at the same time together despite them all being different ages and significantly so, same why do Scott, Storm, Jean and Nightcrawler all age normally into adolescence and immediately halt aging there? why do Magneto and Xavier stop aging as adults but Jean, Scott and co stop aging as teenagers? and why do they rapidly then age a decade or more after 1992 to reach the look of their actual ages?
And how does Stryker age better in one timeline than the other? he doesn't have different genetics you pleb, he has the same genes which means he should age at the same rate, how does he somehow stave of aging to look into his late 40's in one timeline but look like he's in his early 30's in the other supposedly set in the same time period, the character being played by different actors is a bullshit excuse, just recast him for Apocalypse or age him up with make up, again just funny how it isn't just the mutants who don't age properly, the two human characters who appear in either FC or DOFP that pop up in Apocalypse both haven't aged in the 10-20 years since they encountered the X-Men, also even in Origins, Stryker doesn't really age up between meeting Logan and the Weapon X programme, even though this takes place what a decade apart according to you, so again one timeline Stryker looks 40+ in his 30's and about 30 when he's 40+ in another? No dude it's just they didn't care, this whole aging thing is just a bullshit excuse for laziness on the filmmakers part.
Just because you say these timelines are perfect does not make them so, the fact is because YOU say they are perfect means they are likely to be riddled with errors because you are a fool.
Still waiting on you to pin point Jean's appearance in DOFP as a child to prove it BTW, just saying lol no she's there isn't proof, your word is about as trustworthy as £6 note so actually prove it, if you are right I will admit it, unlike you I am not too deluded or insecure to admit to being wrong if proven to be so.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 7, 2020 21:22:01 GMT
LMAO he doesn't age. He changes "mutated" form for the third time in his life. Cinematic BEAST has three humanoid forms: Feline, Werewolf and Simian. The third one is Simian/Ape (The Last Stand).
He will be experimented upon in 1974 or so. By the time we see him again in 1980, he looks more "weary" and his hair are silver. Remember, they applied great facial CGI to Sir Ian for the Last Stand prologue.
William Stryker Jr. is born in 1937, like Hank McCoy.
He is 36 years old in 1973 (X-Men Origins - Vietnam sequence as well as DOFP). Danny was CGI de-aged for the Vietnam sequence indeed. He is 46 years old in "Apocalypse". Just pretend that he dyed his hair brown in the altered timeline, and kept a far better shape. That's it, man.
JEAN GREY is 6 years old in DOFP. Kinberg confirmed that the red haired child who looks up the sky and sees the arena floating in the air is HER. Case closed.
|
|